The State of Karnataka Vs M/S MP24 Construction — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

The State of Karnataka Vs M/S MP24 Construction — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Appeal disposed of with observations; no interference with the interim arrangement; liberty reserved to the appellant to apply afresh if the writ petitions are not disposed of and finalisation of the M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited tenders is likely to be delayed.

Issue for consideration

Whether the decision of the competent authority to award the contract to L2 (second lowest tenderer) or to invite fresh tenders must necessarily be subject to the orders passed in the pending writ petitions, or is a separate decision independent of them. +1 more

Court's answer

The decision of the competent authority whether to award the contract to L2 or to invite fresh tenders necessarily has to be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions, because the writ petitioner's tender has in effect been rejected on the ground of complaints received and the blacklisting order; if that order is set aside, the writ petitioner would be entitled to be considered for award of the contract and the question of awarding the contract to L2 or issuing a fresh tender need not arise.

Ratio / Principle

The Division Bench did not consider it apposite to interfere with the interim arrangement at this stage, given that the learned Single Judge has placed the matter for consideration on 05.11.2025.

Key takeaways

The interim permission to the writ petitioner to participate in tenders floated by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited is sustainable: it is subject to the outcome of the petitioner's challenge, the petitioner cannot claim equities or advantage beyond removal of the disability caused by the blacklisting order, and if the petitioner succeeds and the blacklisting order is set aside it could not be visited with any disadvantages on that account.ratio¶¶63
Possible uncertainty in the finalisation of the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited was not examined as a ground for interference, since the writ petitions are listed for final hearing on 05.11.2025 and the apprehension of delay at this stage is unfounded.ratio¶¶64

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Division Bench (Vibhu Bakhru, Chief Justice and C.M. Poonacha, Judge; oral judgment per the Chief Justice), 03.11.2025, WA No. 1729 of 2025 (GM-TEN), filed under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act: The State of Karnataka and the State Level Debarment Committee appealed against an interim order dated 25.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 25668/2025 (GM-TEN), whereby (a) the competent authority's decision whether to award the contract to L2 or to call fresh tenders was made subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, and (b) the writ petitioner (M/s MP24 Construction Company), whose technical bid was not considered and which faced blacklisting over alleged false work certificates, was permitted to participate in tenders of M/s Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited subject to the writ petitions and without claiming equities. Held: (i) the L2/fresh-tender decision must necessarily abide by the writ petitions' outcome, since setting aside the blacklisting order would entitle the petitioner to consideration for the contract; (ii) the participation permission is sustainable, being conditional on the writ petition outcome and equity-free; (iii) with final hearing fixed for 05.11.2025 there was no occasion to interfere, and the appellant may apply afresh if CNNL tender finalisation is delayed; apprehensions of delay attributable to the State Cabinet were held unfounded. Appeal disposed of.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3^RD DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT APPEAL NO. 1729 OF 2025 (GM-TEN)

BETWEEN:

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, NO.28, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001.

STATE LEVEL DEBARMENT COMMITTEE ROOM NO.317, 3RD FLOOR, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001 REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN.

…APPELLANTS

Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN

Location: High Court of Karnataka

(BY SRI. KIRAN V. RON, AAG ALONG WITH SRI. K.S. HARISH GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE) AND:

M/S MP24 CONSTRUCTION COMPANY (LEAD MEMBER OF CONSORTIUM WITH RAMALINGAM CONSTRUCTION COMPANY PVT. LTD) A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT NO.95, HADENAHALLI VILLAGE, SHRAVANABELAOAL ROAD, BARALU POST, CHANNARAYAATNA TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT, BRANCH OFFICE

B2, 1201, BRAHMAGINI, MALAGALA BDA FLATS, PHASE 2, 5TH NORTH CROSS ROAD, BENGALURU 560072

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR

KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED,

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, 1956, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1 BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR

CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY. NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010.

BHARAT VANIJYA EASTERN PVT LTD A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE COMPANIES ACT, HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT 126, CHITTARANJAN AVENUE, 2ND FLOOR, KOLKATA - 700073 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR.

VASANT VALAPPA NAIK, S/O VALAPPA RAMAPPA NAIK, CHIEF ENGINEER, KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010.

N.SUSHELAMMA MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA ROAD DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, SY.NO.8, SAMPARKA SOUDHA, BEP PREMISES, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR 1ST BLOCK, BENGALURU 560010.

…RESPONDENTS

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

(BY SRI. S.S. NAGANAND SENIOR ADVOCATE

ALONG WITH SRI. PRASHANTH MURTHY S.G., ADVOCATE FOR C/R-1

NOTICE TO RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 6 IS DISPENSED WITH)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO (a) ALLOW THE WRIT APPEAL (b) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 25.09.2025 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGE JUDGE IN WP No. 25668/2025 (GM-TEN) AND ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

Issue notice.

Sri. Prashanth Murthy S.G., learned counsel accepts notice for respondent No.1. Notice to respondent Nos.2 to 6 is dispensed with.

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

The appellant (State of Karnataka), has filed the present appeal, impugning an interim order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25668 of 2025 (GMTEN) and connected matters. Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner), had filed the said writ petition, inter alia impugning the action of the appellant not to consider its technical bid and subsequently to blacklist the writ petitioner.

There is no dispute that the action of the appellant is premised on certain allegations of inter alia furnishing false work certificates for securing the award of the contract in question.

The learned counsel state that one of the questions that falls for consideration of the learned Single Judge is, whether the State can award a contract to L2 (Second lowest tenderer), if the writ petitioner's tender is rejected. Apparently, the question whether in such circumstances fresh tenders are required to be invited or whether L2 is required to be awarded the tender, is being considered by the competent authorities.

In the meanwhile, the M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, an undertaking of the State of Karnataka, had issued notices

5 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

inviting tenders for executing other work(s). The writ petitioner would be barred from participating in the said tenders as a consequence of the blacklisting order impugned. Since the issue whether the order blacklisting the writ petitioner is sustainable, is being examined by the learned Single Judge; the learned Single Judge has issued an interim order, observing that the decision of the competent authority on the question whether the tender is required to be awarded to L2 or whether fresh tenders are required to be called, would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.

Additionally, the Court also permitted the writ petitioner to participate in the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, but clarified that the petitioner's participation would be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions. It was also clarified that the writ petitioner would not claim any equities on account of participating in the tender.

Mr. Kiran V. Ron, learned AAG appearing for the appellant submits that the decision of the competent authority regarding whether to award the contract to L2 or issue fresh tenders, is a separate decision and the same cannot be subject matter of

6 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

decision in the pending writ petition. He also assails the interim order insofar as it permits the writ petitioner to participate in the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited.

Insofar as the first issue is concerned – whether the decision of the competent authority to award the contract to L2 or issue fresh tenders – is concerned, it is clear that the same would necessarily have to be subject to the orders passed in the writ petitions. This is so because the writ petitioner's tender has in effect been rejected on the ground of the complaints received and the backlisting order. If the backlisting order is set aside, the writ petitioner would be entitled for being considered for award of the contract. In such circumstances, the question of awarding the contract to L2 or issuing a fresh tender, need not arise.

Given the fact that the learned Single Judge has placed the matter for consideration on 05.11.2025, we do not consider it apposite to interfere with the interim arrangement, at this stage.

Insofar as the second issue is concerned – that is, permitting the writ petitioner to participate in tenders floated by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, – the learned Single Judge has amply

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

clarified that the same would be subject to the outcome of the petitioner's challenge. Further, the writ petitioner would not claim any equities or any advantage of the interim order except to the extent that it removes the disability in participating in the tender on account of the blacklisting order. The rationale of issuing such directions is apparent. If the writ petitioner was to succeed in the writ petition and the blacklisting order is set aside, the writ petitioner could not be visited with any disadvantages on that account.

Undeniably, permitting the petitioner to participate in such tenders, may create some uncertainty in the finalisation of the tenders. However we do not consider it apposite to examine the said question, as the writ petitions are listed by the Learned Single Judge for final hearing on 05.11.2025. Thus, the apprehension that there may be a delay at this stage, is unfounded. However, if the petitions are not disposed of and it is likely that finalisation of the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited would be delayed, the appellant would have the liberty to apply afresh.

8 -

NC: 2025:KHC:44042-DB WA No. 1729 of 2025

HC-KAR

The apprehension that the decision of the writ petitions may

be delayed on account of any delay by the competent authority (State Cabinet) to take a stand, is also unfounded.

As noticed above, the writ petitioner's challenge is premised

on actions taken by the appellant against the writ petitioner. Thus, irrespective of whether the State Cabinet takes a decision within time or not, the same would not impede the learned Single Judge from taking up the final hearing of the writ petitions, as scheduled.

The appeal is disposed of with the aforesaid observation.

Sd/(VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Interim order dated 25.09.2025 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.25668 of 2025 (GM-TEN) and connected matters, whereby the competent authority's decision whether to award the tender to L2 or call fresh tenders was made subject to the outcome of the writ petitions, and the writ petitioner was permitted to participate in tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited subject to the writ petitions and without claiming equities.¶¶44
Learned Single Judge, High Court of Karnataka · 25.09.2025
Prior proceeding
Respondent No.1 (writ petitioner) filed Writ Petition No.25668 of 2025 (GM-TEN) impugning the appellant's action not to consider its technical bid and subsequently to blacklist it.¶¶44
Prior proceeding
The appellant's action (including blacklisting) is premised on allegations including furnishing false work certificates for securing the award of the contract.¶¶45
Prior proceeding
The competent authorities are considering whether fresh tenders are required to be invited or whether the tender is required to be awarded to L2 if the writ petitioner's tender stands rejected.¶¶46
Prior proceeding
M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited, a State undertaking, invited tenders for other works; the writ petitioner would be barred from participating in them as a consequence of the blacklisting order.¶¶51
Prior proceeding
By the interim order, the learned Single Judge observed that the competent authority's decision whether the tender is to be awarded to L2 or fresh tenders called would be subject to the outcome of the writ petitions.¶¶51
Prior proceeding
The Court also permitted the writ petitioner to participate in the tenders invited by M/s. Cauvery Niravari Nigam Limited.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
It was clarified that the writ petitioner would not claim any equities on account of participating in the tender.¶¶52
Prior proceeding
The writ petitions are listed by the learned Single Judge for final hearing on 05.11.2025.¶¶64